ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST MACEDA
A.M. No. P-12-3093 | March 26, 2014 | J. Leonardo-De Castro
FACTS
 An anonymous complaint, was filed by University of Eastern Philippines
(UEP) student, before the OCA charging Otelia Maceda, Court Interpreter, of
(MTC), Northern Samar, of falsifying her attendance in court so she could
attend law classes at UEP. It alleges:
 Maceda is enjoying the privilege of a regular employee and at the
same time a regular law student, who has been going to school for
more than 4 years.
 This is being tolerated by the Clerk of Court.
 Maceda has been habitually tardy and absent from office because
she leaves the office everyday before 3:00 p.m. to go to class,
since the travel time is 3hrs. The mode of transportation to her
school is by means of water and land vehicles with a distance 70km
away from Palapag,
 Maceda makes it appear in her Daily Time Records that she is still in office
until 5:00 p.m. when in fact she is already in school
 Under Civil Service Law and Rules, falsification of DTR is an act of
dishonesty a grave offense
 1st Indorsement, the OCA referred the complaint to Executive Judge Jose
Falcotelo RTC Laoang for investigation and report.
Judge Falcotelo’s Report
 Recommended the dismissal of the complaint against Maceda, considering
that Maceda pursued her law studies for self-improvement and that she
merely relied on Judge Lagrimas’s permission.
 OCA directed Maceda to file her comment on the letter-complaint
Maceda’s Letter-Comment
 Denied any wrongdoing in the performance of her job and reporting of her
official time.
 She properly reported her daily attendance . Her only intention was to enrich
her knowledge in relation to her work in the judiciary by pursuing law studies,
for which she was granted permission by the judge of her court.
OCA’s Report and Recommendations
1. Matter be re-docketed as a regular complaint for Dishonesty
2. Maceda be found guilty of dishonesty and be suspended for 6 months
 During the investigation of this case, respondent was not represented by
counsel.
 Respondent invokes her right to counsel as this regular
administrative matter will affect employment with the Judiciary, her
law studies, her future Respondent prays for sufficient time to
engage the services of a counsel.
ISSUE / RATIO
1. WON the complainant is not really a student at UEP but another court
employee, who is MACEDA’s rival for the same vacant Clerk of Court
position and thus, the complaint must not be acted – NO
MACEDA
 Complainant is concealing his/her true identity to avoid the discipling authority of
the Court.
SC
 An anonymous complaint is received with great caution, originating as it does
from an unknown author.
 However, a complaint of such sort does not always justify its outright dismissal
for being baseless or unfounded for such complaint may be easily verified and
may, without much difficulty, be substantiated and established by other
competent evidence.
 As this Court ruled in Anonymous Complaint Against Gibson A. Araula:
o Although the Court does not as a rule act on anonymous complaints, cases are
accepted in which the charge could be fully borne by public records of indubitable
integrity, thus needing no corroboration by evidence to be offered by
complainant, whose identity and integrity could hardly be material where the
matter involved is of public interest.
 Indeed, any conduct, act or omission on the part of all those involved in the
administration of justice which would violate the norm of public accountability and
would diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the
Judiciary cannot be countenanced.
o Hence, anonymous complaints of this nature should be acted upon by
this Court.
2. WON the documentary evidence attached to the letter-complaint,
particularly, the photocopies of her certificate of registration at UEP; her
grades for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd year law subjects; and her Daily Time
Records (DTRs) filed with the court, obtained without her
authorization/consent or that of the officers who are in custody of the
documents are admissible – YES
MACEDA
 Insinuates the possibility of a conspiracy between the complainant and the
custodian of the said documents.
 Opposed on the ground of how the documents were obtained, but not on the
falsity of the said documents or their contents.
 Argues that her consent was necessary for the release of copies of the
documents attached to the letter-complaint, but she did not specifically cite the
relevant court and school rules to this effect.
SC
 In so far as Maceda’s DTRs are concerned, these formed parts of her employee
records, which the OCA and the Court can freely access even without her
consent.
 Moreover, proceedings in administrative investigation are not strictly
governed by the technical rules of evidence.
 o They are summary in nature.
 As declared in Office of the Court Administrator v. Indar:
1. It is settled that "technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied
to administrative proceedings. Thus, administrative due process cannot be fully
equated with due process in its strict judicial sense." It is enough that the party is
given the chance to be heard before the case against him is decided. Otherwise
stated, in the application of the principle of due process, what is sought to be
safeguarded is not lack of previous notice but the denial of the opportunity to be
heard.
 Maceda cannot claim that the admission and consideration of the documentary
evidence attached to the letter-complaint violated her right to due process.
o She undeniably had the opportunity to contest the truth of the
documents and/or submit controverting evidence to the same, but she
failed to do so.
3. WON Maceda’s Right to Counsel has been violated – NO
Maceda’s right to Counsel
 Maceda has knowingly and voluntarily participated in the administrative
investigation conducted by Judge Falcotelo, by the OCA, and finally, by this
Court. The administrative investigation began as early as November 2010,
but it was only in Maceda’s Manifestation dated February 2012 that she
insisted on engaging the services of a legal counsel.
 Maceda’s request can no longer be accommodated this far along
into the proceedings. Being a court employee and law student,
Maceda is capable of understanding the charges against her and
adducing her defenses herself.
o It can hardly be believed that Maceda could have traversed the 70-
kilometer distance between the MTC and UEP, which would have
necessitated a boat ride and a jeepney ride, in just 30 minutes.
 Maceda only offered a general denial of any wrongdoing and asserted that
someone at the MTC was just trying to destroy her reputation.
o She did not offer a clear explanation on how she could have
attended her 5:30 p.m. classes in UEP on time even when she
supposedly left the MTC at only 5:00 p.m. Maceda’s repeated
assertion that she continued her law school classes for self-
improvement and with the permission of the MTC Presiding Judge
does little to exculpate her of administrative liability.
o These are not acceptable excuses for not properly declaring the
time she logged-off from work in her DTRs.
o Time and again, the OCA and this Court have underscored the
importance of court employees truthfully and accurately recording
in their DTRs the time of their arrival in and departure from office.
Maceda is guilty of Less Serious Dishonesty, suspended for 6 months and 1
day, and is warned of severe punishment of the same act.

A party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel.

 The right to counsel under Section 12 of the Bill of Rights is meant to protect
a suspect during custodial investigation.
 Thus, the exclusionary rule under paragraph (2), Section 12 of the
Bill of Rights applies only to admissions made in a criminal
investigation but not to those made in an administrative
investigation.
 While investigations conducted by an administrative body may at times be
akin to a criminal proceeding, a party in an administrative inquiry may or may
not be assisted by counsel,
 The right to counsel is not always imperative in administrative
investigations because such inquiries are conducted merely to determine
whether there are facts that merit the imposition of disciplinary measures
against erring public officers and employees, with the purpose of maintaining
the dignity of government service.

Maceda did indeed falsify her DTRs and is, therefore, guilty of less serious
dishonesty.
 Maceda’s Summary of Scholastic Records, showed that her law school
subjects starts at 5:30 p.m. Hence, it was impossible for Maceda to have
left the MTC only at 5:00 p.m.